State v. Vondal, 803 N.W.2d 578

Vondal appeals criminal judgments after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault and continuous sexual abuse of a child.
B.V., then fourteen, reported past sexual abuse by Vondal; investigation occurred when Vondal was twenty-one.
Prosecution joined the two charges (aggravated assault and continuous sexual abuse) in district court.
The State sought and received a pretrial order prohibiting defense arguments that the continuous abuse charge should be dismissed based on Vondal's age at the time of offense.
Vondal did not oppose the motion and indicated he would not argue age as a defense; he moved for acquittal at the close and after evidence, which the court denied.
The district court allowed testimony regarding some acts and excluded others; the jury convicted on both counts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether prosecuting as an adult for acts before age 14 was proper	Vondal argues §12.1-04-01 bars prosecution as adult for pre-14 acts.	Vondal contends obvious error; the pre-14 acts should not have been admitted or prosecuted as adult.	Court held §12.1-04-01 does not apply; no obvious error in prosecution as adult.
Prosecutorial misconduct and due process	Vondal asserts multiple misconducts affected fairness (themes, closing, motive, leading questions).	State contends no prejudicial misconduct; no denial of fair trial.	No prosecutorial misconduct deprived fair trial; no reversible error.
Confrontation rights and exclusion of state-of-mind testimony	Vondal argues exclusion of B.V.'s state-of-mind testimony violated Sixth Amendment rights.	State maintains cross-examination limits are within court's discretion and testimony was speculative.	No Sixth Amendment violation; court did not abuse discretion in excluding speculative state-of-mind testimony.
Sufficiency of the evidence	State provided sufficient evidence to support both convictions.	Defense argues evidence insufficient to prove elements of each offense.	Sufficient evidence supports aggravated assault and continuous sexual abuse convictions.
Mirrored or ancillary issues not raised below (obvious error review)	N/A	N/A	Even considering unraised issues, no obvious error affected substantial rights.

Keller v. State, 550 N.W.2d 411 (N.D. 1996) (obvious error review for issues not raised)
Woehlhoff, 540 N.W.2d 162 (N.D. 1995) (exceptional obvious error standard)
Evans, 1999 ND 70, 593 N.W.2d 336 (N.D. 1999) (obvious error standard in prosecutorial misconduct)
Ness, 2009 ND 182, 774 N.W.2d 254 (N.D. 2009) (limited cross-examination within court discretion)
Burke, 2000 ND 25, 606 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. 2000) (pre-trial misconduct analysis; prejudice to substantial rights)
John v. State, 291 N.W.2d 502 (Wis. 1980) (continuous offense concept and elements)
Knoefler, 325 N.W.2d 192 (N.D. 1982) (continuing offense framework; each act not separate offense)
Meza, 165 P.3d 298 (Kan.App. 2007) (continuing offense elements and timing)
Palmer, 810 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1991) (continuing offense framework)
Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (U.S. 1988) (Confrontation Clause—effective cross-examination scope)